============================================================================== RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE -- EVERY NUMBER, PRINTED FROM CODE ============================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BLOCK A -- the fifty-jurisdiction medians and Massachusetts's distance ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: data/fifty-state/tier-50-2026-09-05.json (Georgia held out; see docs/2026-09-05-georgia-worked-example.md). S1 = equal parenting time, S2 = the other parent has primary custody. Monthly figures throughout, as the tier-50 dataset states them. S1 (equal time): ranked jurisdictions 50 median $ 2,172.95/mo Massachusetts $ 4,388.48/mo rank 1 of 50 MA above the median $ 2,215.52/mo 102.0% S2 (primary custody): ranked jurisdictions 50 median $ 2,859.29/mo Massachusetts $ 4,714.22/mo rank 2 of 50 MA above the median $ 1,854.93/mo 64.9% ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BLOCK B -- Washington, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, New York ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Basis and cap note: data/fifty-state/ceilings-2026-09-06.json. Washington S1 $ 2,819.56/mo S2 $ 2,819.56/mo basis: net cap: $600,000/yr ($50,000/month combined net income (RCW 26.19.020, eff. 1/1/2026)) -- Raised from the $480,000/yr figure in Brattle Figure 34 (based on the pre-2026 statute) by 2025 c 272 s 14, effective January 1, 2026. Per task instructions the profile's newer figure is used here; Brattle's is recorded separately. California S1 $ 2,424.32/mo S2 $ 3,436.04/mo basis: net cap: no stated ceiling -- No stated combined- or obligor-income figure at which the schedule stops; other model. See cap field (may be truncated) for the mechanism. row note: attack-corrected figures (EITC input) New Jersey S1 $ 3,002.31/mo S2 $ 3,002.31/mo basis: net cap: $187,200/yr ($3,600/week combined net income (Appendix IX-F, revised eff. 9/1/2025)) -- This is a genuine 2025 revision, LOWER than Brattle Figure 34's $208,000 (based on the pre-revision Appendix IX-F table). Per task instructions, the profile's newer figure is used; Brattle's is recorded separately. Connecticut S1 $ 3,138.20/mo S2 $ 3,138.20/mo basis: net cap: $312,000/yr ($6,000.00/week) -- Basis corrected to net 2026-09-06: the citation itself says combined NET income. New York S1 $ 4,067.61/mo S2 $ 4,067.61/mo basis: gross cap: $193,000/yr ($193,000.00/year) Washington present at the ranked tier: True California present at the ranked tier: True ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BLOCK C -- candidate credits for equal parenting time, worked example ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Payor $201,000/yr gross, health premium $43; recipient $570/wk gross, health premium $33; three children; no child care. Sources: worksheet.py, box1_fix.py (variants A, B, C), and the linear rule applied here to worksheet.py's own Box 2 figure. Today's Box 2 (primary) order $ 1,087.90/wk $ 4,714.22/mo Today's Box 1 (shared) order $ 1,012.73/wk $ 4,388.48/mo candidate wk mo vs Box1 vs median vs WA vs CA (i) Variant A -- 6e limitation moved to the transfer $ 935.06 $4,051.93 -7.7% 86.5% 43.7% 67.1% (ii) Variant B -- cross-credit at duplication 1.5 $ 701.30 $3,038.95 -30.8% 39.9% 7.8% 25.4% (iii) Variant C at equal time (payor 50% of overnights) $ 701.30 $3,038.95 -30.8% 39.9% 7.8% 25.4% (iv) Linear time-proportional discount at 50% of overnights $ 543.95 $2,357.11 -46.3% 8.5% -16.4% -2.8% (v-a) Linear time-proportional discount at 45% of overnights $ 707.13 $3,064.24 -30.2% 41.0% 8.7% 26.4% (v-b) Linear time-proportional discount at 40% of overnights $ 870.32 $3,771.38 -14.1% 73.6% 33.8% 55.6% ('vs median/WA/CA' = the candidate's monthly figure, percent above (+) or below (-) the fifty-state S1 median / Washington's S1 / California's S1.) Check: Variant C at equal time reproduces Variant B exactly, as box1_fix.py's own docstring says ('at equal time this is identical to B'): True ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BLOCK D -- the Box 1 reduction that reaches the median, WA, and CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Starting point: today's Box 1 order $1,012.73/wk ($4,388.48/mo). To reach the fifty-state S1 median ($2,172.95/mo): cut $511.27/wk ($26,586/yr), 50.5% off today's Box 1 order. To reach Washington's S1 ($2,819.56/mo): cut $362.06/wk ($18,827/yr), 35.8% off today's Box 1 order. To reach California's S1 ($2,424.32/mo): cut $453.27/wk ($23,570/yr), 44.8% off today's Box 1 order. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BLOCK E -- corpus check: was gross-vs-net deferred, and how many times ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Commentary 2017: 6 block(s) in Guidelines.flow.txt, 0 sentence(s) containing both 'gross' and 'net': Commentary 2018: 2 block(s) in Guidelines.flow.txt, 0 sentence(s) containing both 'gross' and 'net': Commentary 2021: 6 block(s) in Guidelines.flow.txt, 0 sentence(s) containing both 'gross' and 'net': Commentary 2023: 2 block(s) in Guidelines.flow.txt, 0 sentence(s) containing both 'gross' and 'net': Commentary 2025: 5 block(s) in Guidelines.flow.txt, 0 sentence(s) containing both 'gross' and 'net': Total sentences with both terms inside a Guidelines.flow.txt commentary block: 0 'as prior task forces' across data/extracted/*.flow.txt: 1 hit(s) FULL CORPUS (data/deferrals-gross-vs-net.json, 7 reviews): 5 cycles take up gross versus net and none change it: 2009 task force report 2013 task force report 2017 economic review by the Commonwealth's consultant 2021 economic review by the Commonwealth's consultant 2025 economic review by the Commonwealth's consultant Task force decisions: [2009, 2013]. Economic review statements: [2017, 2021, 2025]. Never write 'five task forces declined'; only the first list is task force decisions. Econreview.flow.txt: "Again in this review, as prior task forces have done, the Task Force discussed the use of gross versus net income in the guidelines." CONCLUSION: 0 sentence(s) mentioning both gross and net appear inside the year-tagged commentary blocks embedded in the Guidelines PDF itself (2017, 2018, 2021, 2023, 2025 all checked, zero hits). The explicit deferral -- "as prior task forces have done ... decided not to recommend a change from gross income to net income at this time" -- lives in Econreview.flow.txt, the Brattle economic review, not in the Guidelines' own embedded commentary, and it does not itself name which prior years deferred it. State it as: one document in this corpus (the 2025 economic review) records a gross-vs-net deferral and says prior task forces did the same; the Guidelines' own year-tagged commentary blocks contain no sentence discussing gross vs. net at all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BLOCK F -- the author's childcare recommendation, worked example ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Payor $201,000/yr gross ($43 health premium), recipient $570/wk gross ($29,640/yr, $33 health premium), three children (two under 13), Box 1, recipient pays $300/wk child care, payor pays $0 directly. Source: model/childcare_post_transfer.py (reused, not reimplemented) and model/net_position.py's analyze(). Total annual child care at issue: $15,600/yr ($300/wk) 1. Current worksheet (Line 6b on pre-order Line 3c shares) order $ 1,275.77/wk $ 5,528.34/mo payor's share of the $15,600/yr child care: 87.7% ($13,678.35/yr) after tax: payor keeps $73,493.41 recipient household holds $75,473.83 2. Childcare removed from the worksheet (each parent bears what they pay) order $ 1,012.73/wk $ 4,388.48/mo payor's share of the $15,600/yr child care: 0.0% ($ 0.00/yr) after tax: payor keeps $87,171.76 recipient household holds $61,795.48 3. Base support first, then childcare split 50-50 order $ 1,012.73/wk $ 4,388.48/mo payor's share of the $15,600/yr child care: 50.0% ($ 7,800.00/yr) after tax: payor keeps $79,371.76 recipient household holds $69,595.48 4. Post-transfer GROSS shares on Line 3a (comments' fallback, Line 6b-2) order $ 1,206.08/wk $ 5,226.34/mo payor's share of the $15,600/yr child care: 64.5% ($10,054.33/yr) after tax: payor keeps $77,117.43 recipient household holds $71,849.81 5. Post-transfer NET shares on the withholding basis (comments' Line 6b-1 redline, RECOMMENDED) order $ 1,171.64/wk $ 5,077.09/mo payor's share of the $15,600/yr child care: 53.0% ($ 8,263.37/yr) after tax: payor keeps $78,908.40 recipient household holds $70,058.84 The sentence the site makes (rule 1, current worksheet): before the order, the payor's share of the parties' combined available income (Line 3c) is 87.7%; after the order, his share of POST-TRANSFER GROSS income is 64.3%; after the order, his share of POST-TRANSFER NET income, withholding basis (the ask) is 53.0%; after the order, his share of POST-TRANSFER NET income counting refundable credits (analysis only) is 49.7%; and child care is allocated on the 87.7% figure -- the income split BEFORE the order, not any figure after it. ============================================================================== END OF RUN ==============================================================================